### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00119- CR

Er ne stSt oke s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 30311 80, H ONO RAB LE BO B PERK INS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The district cour

t found appe l lant Ernest Stokes g uilty of ag g ravated assault and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for ten y ear s. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 2 2. 02 (We st Supp. 2004-05). The c ourt’s judg ment contains an a ffirmative finding t h at S t o k es used a firea rm during the commission of the offe nse. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 4 2. 12 , § 3g (a )( 2) (We st Supp. 2004-05). Stokes challeng es this finding in two points of er ror. He contends that sec tion 3g (a) (2) doe s not apply

in a prosec ution for ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon and that an aff irmative finding in such a c ase c onstitut es multiple punishment for the same of fense in violation of t h e co n s t i t utional gua

rante e ag ainst double jeopar dy . We will overrule these contentions and aff irm the conviction.

The c omplainant, L inda Fowle r, spent the night of J une 10, 2003, at Stokes’s house. Whe n s he awo ke the ne xt mor nin g , Stok e s, wh o wa s dri nk ing , ac c us e d he r o f b e inginv olv e d w ith2

ano the r ma

n. Sto ke s c ur se d F ow le r and tol d he r that the on ly wa y sh e wa s g oin g to le a ve the ho us e
was “in a box .” Stokes struc k Fowle r with his fist a nd pushed her onto the living ro o m couch. When Fowle r attempted to flee throug h the front door, S tokes g rabbe d her by the nec k, drag g ed her back into the house , and locked the door. As Stokes and Fow ler strug g led, he c ontinued to hit her with his fists, the n he struck her with a beer bottle a nd kicked her in the fac e. Fowle r r an t o t he bathroom blee ding f

rom h er m o u t h
. Stokes followed her into the bathroom, pushed her into the bathtub, and held her head under the running water
. Fowle r m anag ed to free he rself f rom Stokes’s g rip and ra

n to the bedroom. Stokes produc ed a shotgun, loade d it in Fowler’ s prese nce, a nd repe ated his threat to kill her. Stokes orde red F owler to re move her clothes. When she did, he “ put the shotg un up to my

head a nd told me he would blow my brains out.” Stokes held Fowle r in the bedr oom all that day
. He r epeatedly kicked he r and struc k her with his fists. He exti ng uished a cig are tte on her leg and choked her with a television cable . He kept the s h o t gu n wi t h him and repe atedly told Fowler

that he would kill her whe n it got dar k. At
a bo ut 7 :00 p. m., a po lic e of fi c e r en g a g e d in ot

he r b us ine ss p ark e d in

fr on t of Sto ke s’ s h ou se . St ok e s, fea ring that th e c o mm o ti o nin h is h o u s e h a d

a tt r a c te d th e a tt e n ti o no f

th e p o li c e , p u t d o w nthe
s h o t g u nan d

o p e n e d h i s f r o n t d o o r t o w a t c h t h e o f

f i c e r . F o w l e r

t o o k a dv an t a g e o f

t h e o p p o rtu n i t y, pushed past Stokes, and ra n to the office r. The fir st count of the indictment alleg ed the of fense of ag g ravated assault in eleve n pa ra g ra ph s. F ive pa

ra g ra ph s a lle g e d th a t Sto ke s c a us e d bo dil y inj ur

y to F ow le r by

str iki nghe r w ith a g lass bottle, a deadly wea pon (par ag raph one), by strang ling her wit h a wire cable , a dea dly wea pon (par ag raph three) , by kicking her w ith his foot, a deadly wea pon (par ag raph f

ive), a nd by striking he r and holdi ng her head under water wit h his hand, a de adly wea pon (par ag raphs se ven and te n). SeeCount two of t he indi ctment accused St okes of ag g ravated kidnapping
. See Tex. P en. Code 1 Ann. § 20.04 (West 2003). The c ourt adjudg ed him not guilty of that off

ense. 3 Tex. P en. Code Ann. §§ 22.01(a) (1), 22.02( a)( 2) (West Supp. 2004-05). The othe r six para g raphs al l ege d t h at S t o k es t h re at en edFo wl er wi t h i m m i n en tb o d i l y

i n j u ry wh i l e u s i n g an d

ex h i b i t i n g a deadly wea pon, specific ally

a g lass b o t t l e (parag raph two) , a wire cable (par ag raph f our), his foot (par ag raph six), his hand (para g raphs ei gh t and ele ven, which w ere identical), a nd a fire arm ( p ar a g r a p h n ine). Se e id . §§ 22.01(a) (2), 22.02( a)( 2). The c ourt did not specify the par ag raph or p ar a g r a p h s o nw h i c h i tf

o u n d S t o k e s g u i l t y. 1 Stokes asserts that beca

use the use or e x hibition of a deadly wea pon was a n element of the a g g r a v a te d a s s a

u lt o f f e n s e f o r w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d , th e in c lu s io n in th e ju d g me nt of an aff irmative finding pursuant to s ection 3g (a) (2) wa s a misapplication of the statute a nd constitutes
m u l t i p le punishment for the same offe nse in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See U. S. Const. ame nd. V. Stokes did not obje ct when the trial court announce d that it wa s mak i n g t he aff irmative finding , nor did he ra ise these contentions in his mot ion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 3 3. 1(a) (pr e se rv a tio n o f e rr or ); se e als o D uv all v . S tate , 5 9 S. W. 3 d

7 7 3 , 7 7 6
- 7 7 ( T e x. Ap p. —A us tin

20 01 , p e t. r e f’ d) (d ou

ble je op ard

y c la im r a ise d f

or fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l mu st b e c le arl y ap p ar en to nfa ce o f r ec o rd ) ( ci t i n g Go nz ale z v . S tate , 8 S.W .3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). All feloni es ar e theor etically susceptible to an a ffirmative finding under se ction 3 g(a)(2). Pa tte rso n v . S

tate , 7 6 9 S. W. 2 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 0 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 8 9 )
. T h e p h r a s e “ u s ed or exhib i t ed a d ea d l y

wea pon during commission of a felony offe nse” in that statute doe s not mean

“ us e d o r e xhibi te d a

de a dly we a po n d ur ingc omm iss ion of an of fe ns e wh ic h d oe s n ot o the rw ise require the use or exhibi tion of a deadly wea pon.” Ty ra v . S

tate , 8 97 S.W. 2d

79 6, 79 8 ( Te x. Cr im.4

App. 1995). S tokes cites no per tinent authority

to support his contention that the leg islature did not intend section 3g(a )(2) to apply in a prosecution for assault ag g ravated by the use or e x hibition of a dea dly wea pon. I n fac t, the authority is to the contrar

y . Se e Tho ma s v . S

tate , 2 S.W .3d 640, 643 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pe t.). This Court r ejec ted essentially the same contention in a pre vious unpublished opinion. Lan ie r v . S tate , No. 03-95-00238-CR, 1996 Tex. App. L EXI S 2668, at *12-13 (Tex. App.—Austin J une 26, 1996, pet. r ef’ d) (not desig nated f or publication). Sto ke s’ s d ou

ble jeop ard

y c la im i s a lso c on tr ary

to e xistin g a

uth or ity . T he Do ub le J eop ar d y Clause does, of c ourse, pr otect ag ainst multi ple punishments for the same offe nse. Pa tte rso n v . S

tate , 9 6 S. W. 3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 1 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n2002), a

f f ’d , No. PD-0177-03, 2004 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 1832, at *11 (Te x . Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2004). B ut a sec tion 3g( a)( 2)
a ff ir mativ e fi nd ingdo e s n ot a lte r o r a ff e c t th e punis hme nt a sse sse d f or the of fe ns e ; it on ly a ff e c ts the defe ndant’s elig ibilit y for community supervision and pa role. Pa c he c an o v. Sta te , 881 S.W .2d 53 7, 54 6 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1 99 4, no pe t.) ; se e Sp e th v . S tate , 6 S.W. 3d

53 0, 53 2 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1999) (c ommunity

supervision is not part of sentenc e). Community supervision is a privileg e,
no t a ri g ht, and the de c isi on

to s us pe nd

imp os iti on

of se nte nc e and

pla c e a de fe nd ant on

c omm un ity supervision is within the absolute discretion of the tr ial court. Sp e th , 6 S.W .3d at 5 3 3
. S t o kes’s
asser tion that the aff

irmative finding in this ca

use had the eff

ect of incre asing his mini mum sentence fr o m z er o to two y ear s is sim ply incorre ct. See T e x. Pe n . Co d e A n n . § 1 2
. 3 3 ( a ) ( We s t 2 003) (minimum puni shment for sec ond deg ree felony is imprisonm ent for two year s). I n a dd iti on

to h a vin g no le g a l me ri t, S tok e s’ s d ou bl e jeo pard y

argume nt a lso fa ils beca use the re cord doe s n o t s u p port his assertion that the a g g ravated assault convic tion and the aff irmative finding wer e base d on the same c onduct. The a ffirmat i v e fi nding that Stokes used or5

exhibi ted a f

irea rm during the commission of the offe nse obviously rested on his use a

nd exhibi tion of the shotg un. But in convic ti n g S t o k es of ag g ravated assault, the c ourt may have f ound that he threatened F owler w ith imm inent bodily injury by strang ling he r with a wire cord, a n instrument that in the m anner of i ts use wa s capa ble of c ausing serious bodily injury or death. See Tex. Pen. Code A n n . § 1
. 0 7 ( a ) ( 1 7 ) ( W e s tS u p p . 2 0 0 4
- 0 5 ) ( d e f

i n i n g “ d e a d l y w e a

p o n ” )
. A c o n v i c t i o no nt h i s t h e o r y, among others alleg ed in the indict m en t an d supported by the re cord, is not inconsistent with the aff irmative fi n d i n g that Stokes also used or exhibited the shotgun duringthe commission of the offe nse. For

the re asons stated, we hold that the district court did not misapply art. 42.12,
se c tio n 3 g (a )( 2) by

e nte ri ngan a ff

ir mativ e fi nd ingin th e ju dgme nt a nd that th e re is n o d ou

ble jeopar dy violation appare nt on the fac e of this re cord. The points of error are o v er rul ed and the judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

__________________________________________

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 3, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh